Days of Future Past Are you tired of Wolverine being overexposed?

[danoyse]

I was referring to the 'X-Men' title not the 'Origins' part.

By prefacing everything with X-Men, it could add to the feeling of saturation and fatigue. That was what I was wondering.

At least X Force may may just be called X Force (though the X is a bit of a giveaway, admittedly). But it's X-Men: Rise of X Force, or something like that. A good thing, I think.

But then you included "Origins" in front of all the Avengers titles as examples.

 

[X-Maniac]

It's a good thing they dropped it 3 films and 4 years ago?

No, I mean the use of 'X-Men' in the titles, not 'Origins'...

I'm wondering if Marvel's films retain a fresher feel because they don't have a similar word or phrase in every title.

 

[X-Maniac]

But then you included "Origins" in front of all the Avengers titles as examples.

Well, yes, because there hadn't been an Avengers movie at that point.

Avengers: Thor just wouldn't have worked, if you get my drift.

 

[danoyse]

But the title is named directly after the character.

My point is that calling a film The Wolverine at that stage (after all the previous X-Men films with him as a main character) isn't the same as calling Thor's first movie Thor.

But it didn't use "X-Men". Isn't that what you're saying they shouldn't be doing in the titles anymore?

 

[X-Maniac]

Anyway, folks, the point is how does the franchise branch out WITHOUT focusing yet again on Wolverine?

Will we learn more about Cyclops, Storm, Gambit, etc? Will we see Wanda, Polaris?

 

[X-Maniac]

But it didn't use "X-Men". Isn't that what you're saying they shouldn't be doing in the titles anymore?

Yes, and it's the one and only instance where they haven't used X-Men. I'm asking if that is part of the key to making something that feels fresher.

 

[danoyse]

Yes, and it's the one and only instance where they haven't used X-Men. I'm asking if that is part of the key to making something that feels fresher.

See, you could have started from that point and and we could have avoided this whole Origins conversation...

 

[X-Maniac]

See, you could have started from that point and and we could have avoided this whole Origins conversation...

I wish i had the mutant ability to time travel. I had no idea there would such confusion lol

 

[danoyse]

I wish i had the mutant ability to time travel. I had no idea there would such confusion lol

I don't think we were the confused ones.

 

[X-Maniac]

I don't think we were the confused ones.

Hey! I admit I didn't make it entirely clear, but I've just got home from working a 10-hour day so a little brainfart is excusable, I think

 

[danoyse]

Hey! I admit I didn't make it entirely clear, but I've just got home from working a 10-hour day so a little brainfart is excusable, I think

Just this once!

 

[X-Maniac]

Just this once!

Okay But what did you think of the point I raised? How do you think the franchise should branch out? And who else other than Wolverine deserves some time in the spotlight?

 

[Farren]

Okay But what did you think of the point I raised? How do you think the franchise should branch out? And who else other than Wolverine deserves some time in the spotlight?

Well, just speaking for myself, I don't think Fox should give anyone else the spotlight, so much as they should embrace the notion of the X-Men as an ensemble cast and as a team. They've always been a team, going all the way back to the Silver Age, and I think that's where they're strength as interesting characters lies.

 

[Mulholland-Jr]

Well, yeah, that was the one exception. But it doesn't apply to the other films.

Just like X-Men Origins is the one exception. If you don't recall we are also getting an X-Force movie in a couple years.

 

[X-Maniac]

Just like X-Men Origins is the one exception. If you don't recall we are also getting an X-Force movie in a couple years.

I'm well aware of the X Force plans, but I'm talking about whether the franchise would benefit from avoiding 'X-Men:' in titles for at least some of its projects.

It has at least happened with The Wolverine (though that wasn't an introductory film, like Thor, Iron Man) and with X Force (though it still has an X in the name).

I was just considering whether it would be good to make the franchise seem fresher by having standalone titles for the other projects, or whether it's okay to carry on with things like, for instance, X-Men: Age of Apocalypse, etc. Just pondering and wondering what others thought.

 

[Angamb]

interesting point, Xmaniac, Ive thought about that too.

I think it would be a smart move to bring a few different tittles, to make it seem its something totally new, even if its connected to main series.

But the more fresh materia and different stuff to general audience, the better, I think.

 

[GuestStar2004]

only reason to add X-men to the title is if there are any X-men actually in it, if its a new team then its pointless and misleading

 

[Mulholland-Jr]

Why would they drop the X-Men title from an X-Men movie that features X-Men characters? It especially makes no sense from a marketing standpoint. "X-Men" is a recognizable brand name, and while characters like Storm and Cyclops are indeed popular they aren't typically recognized as their own entity like Spider-Man and Iron-Man, they are recognized as X-Men characters. They are more similar to the Fantastic Four in that sense. While fatigue is a valid concern for the franchise I really don't see dropping the brand name doing any favors.

 

[GuestStar2004]

it would be misleading, they could just put alot of enthersis on the X which would link them together like this

but otherwise its a completely different mutant team

when Marvel do ant man are they gonna call it The Avengers: Ant Man... because no one has heard of ant man but least they will know its part of the avengers universe =/

Plus I suspect they will want to make xforce sequels

 

[BMM]

No, I mean the use of 'X-Men' in the titles, not 'Origins'...

I think it's perfectly fine for spin-offs, like The Wolverine and X-Force, to not use "X-Men" in their titles. In fact, I would prefer they didn't. I'm not sure it's a smart move, however, for the team movies to abandon the familiar moniker, especially if Fox continues to insist on alternating between spin-offs and the main franchise. It could become confusing, and the brand could appear even more disjointed than it already is.

I'm wondering if Marvel's films retain a fresher feel because they don't have a similar word or phrase in every title.

Marvel's films maintain a fresher feel because the majority of them have yet to even release a second installment. Beyond that, they do have a similar word or phrase in every title of each respective franchise. Marvel is very much following X-Men's footsteps in the regard.

X-Men
X2: X-Men United
X-Men: The Last Stand

Thor
Thor: The Dark World

Captain America: The First Avenger
Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Avengers
Avengers: Age of Ultron

Give it a few years. See how fresh they feel after we've seen Thor: Third Title and Avengers: Third Title. My guess is not so much.

 

[Mulholland-Jr]

^ This. Those are pretty generic titles too. When we get titles without the brand name like "The Dark Knight" let me know.

 

[BMM]

And I doubt we ever will because, like the X-Men franchise, and unlike Nolan's already completed Dark Knight trilogy, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is too big to not maintain some sort of order amongst all of its films and their various titles.

 

[psylockolussus]

I am getting tired of Wolverine's exposure. However, I do understand why the studio does this. In order to make a successful film series, it is best for the franchise to revolve around a certain character in order to keep some sort of consistency within the series. However, they could still manage to give other characters more chances to shine, but it seems like Fox wants to play it safe and stick to Wolverine as the main character. It works, so if it ain't broke, don't fix it I guess.

I thought FOX did well in X2 even if Wolverine was still in the big picture.

If they don't stop clinging to Wolverine, this franchise will never expand.

Downey Jr isn't popping up in the Thor and Captain America sequels, or (as far as we know) in Guardians of the Galaxy.

Releasing new X-Men movies = expansion

Thats my interpretation, don't you think WB/MGM didn't expand the world of Harry Potter and James Bond by releasing more than 7 films?

I think dropping the generic titles might be worth considering, too.

We never had 'Avengers Origins: Thor', 'Avengers Origins: Hulk', 'Avengers Origins: Iron Man'. That would have made people bored, I think, by the time Avengers was released.

Time now to branch out a bit.

Origins was only used once in a X-Men movie and they did that to let people know that its still a X-Men movie. There's no indication that future films will contain the word "Origins" in the title of a X-Men movie.

 

[psylockolussus]

I was referring to the 'X-Men' title not the 'Origins' part.

By prefacing everything with X-Men, it could add to the feeling of saturation and fatigue. That was what I was wondering.

At least X Force may may just be called X Force (though the X is a bit of a giveaway, admittedly). But it's not going to be called X-Men: Rise of X Force, or something like that. A good thing, I think.

I agree with that. But still having the word "X-Men" in the title of the movie will still HELP.

If FOX is gonna sell a film that isn't a guaranteed HIT like X-Force, they might as well market it as a X-Men film.

And about over-saturation, IMO to avoid it, FOX shouldn't release more spin-offs until this series hasn't reached its new peak.

No, I mean the use of 'X-Men' in the titles, not 'Origins'...

I'm wondering if Marvel's films retain a fresher feel because they don't have a similar word or phrase in every title.

Well the thing is Wolverine already appeared in the X-Men movies as one of the X-Men, for me, there's no issue if they included the "X-Men Origins" in the title of the movie because the movie was about the origin of a X-Men.

With Thor, Captain America, Hulk, Iron Man, before their solo film came out, we had not seen them as part of the Avengers yet. It would be odd, if they called those films as "Avengers Origins: Thor" and the GA doesn't know what Avengers mean.

Why would they drop the X-Men title from an X-Men movie that features X-Men characters? It especially makes no sense from a marketing standpoint. "X-Men" is a recognizable brand name, and while characters like Storm and Cyclops are indeed popular they aren't typically recognized as their own entity like Spider-Man and Iron-Man, they are recognized as X-Men characters. They are more similar to the Fantastic Four in that sense. While fatigue is a valid concern for the franchise I really don't see dropping the brand name doing any favors.

Agreed!

 

[Farren]

I think the title debate is rather pointless. It's a title, not the movie. Yes it may be a clue into the mindset of the studio, and that's a worthy discussion, but the title itself doesn't really matter aside from marketing.

I think Marvel's approach to the MCU actually proves that having a "standalone" title like Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk or Thor, doesn't mean there isn't going to be an attempt to establish each of these characters in a larger Avengers-centered universe. (I actually think Marvel went too far in doing this, namely in IM 2 and Captain America, to the point where it started to take away from the movies as standalone films. But that's a whole other point of debate that I don't want to stir up.)